Darkness Eternae Legendary Land — Swamp [darkness, ambient light, arbor, foliage, road, and fog]
Lands you control are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
//
Necromancer of the Dark-PactBBB Creature — Avatar
Necromancer of the Dark-Pact can't be countered unless the source's controller pays half of his or her life, rounded down.
Necromancer of the Dark-Pact is indestructible as long as you control a Nightmare.
Whenever a creature attacks you, that creature gets -1/-1 for each Nightmare you control.
3/2
Spirit of Terror2B Creature — Nightmare
Spirit of Terror's power and toughness is equal to the number of Nightmares you control plus the number of Nightmare cards in your graveyard.
If Spirit of Terror would be destroyed, regenerate it and you lose 2 life. I still remember that night of dread—as if it was just yesterday. And the feeling that haunted me long after—that it was going to take me out. It feels like just a dream that it's gone. Is it coming back for me again? Or will another arise as a darker shadow than once was?
+*/+*
I'm not sure the intent here, as you ah put in the double slash indicating this is a split card, but neither half has a mana cost and the top is missing a card type and the bottom has no subtypes.
That aside, the top half would need to either make the lands creatures also or give them the Tribal supertype, as creature types cannot be granted to non-creature non-tribal permanents. Also, granting relevant types/subtypes to lands in wide quantities can be dangerous, as Affinity for Artifacts demonstrated during mirrodin block causing the Artifact Lands to get banned. The exception is when the effect also makes them creatures and/or is on a creature because the effect can more easily be interacted with by the opponent. If this made the lands 1/1 black Nightmare creatures, it would be more balanced, especially with the lower card.
Playing the game would show you that the second half/card will be inherently unfun to play against as written, because it basically shuts the other player down from paying Magic. The mass -1/-1s on attacks means your opponent cannot go wide around it, it being indestructible means means their largest attacker that survives will bounce off it, and shroud means that it cannot be point removed. A board wipe is the usual answer to an untargetable creature, but it will be indestructible when the wipe resolves so you would need two in the same turn before they can ply another nightmare.
So how can you make this better? Small tweaks are actually easy here.
Nightmare Lich Prototype 4BBB(1)
Legendary Creature - Zombie Wizard (2)
Indestructible
This creature has hexproof as long as you control a Nightmare. (3)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you, target attacking creature gets -X/-X , where X is the number of Nightmares you control. (4)
5/5
(1)(An indestructible, conditionally untargetable 5/5 with the ability to repeatedly remove creatures will be at least 7 mana, possibly 8) (2){Lichs are always Zombies of some kind) (3){Shroud isn't used anymore, since about Rise of the Eldrazi, but hexproof let you interact with your lich if you want to. Making it conditional rather than the indestructible means it can be bounced, exiled, Dismembered after a boardwipe gets rid of the Nightmares) (4)(Making the the attack trigger target means you have the utility of destroying the most threatening attacker and blocking another with the Lich, but your opponent can still attack effectively to grind down the nightmares or go around them with superior numbers)
Nightmare Lich Prototype
Legendary Creature - Zombie Wizard
Indestructible
This creature has hexproof as long as you control a Nightmare.
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you, target attacking creature gets -X/-X , where X is the number of Nightmares you control.
5/5
What a nicely balanced and intriguing card that actually allows for interaction instead of grinding the game to an utter halt for no good reason while breaking rules regarding card types without justification for it on a rules-wide level beyond "the rules could change to make my one card work". You are the sort of card designer that I feel we should see more of on these forums and I hope that we continue to see more of this sort of artistry instead of loose ideas written on a napkin that nobody bothered translating into a proper magic card.
Shroud was really only stapled on there. I'm going to just remove it, and present the tempered product.
Alternative names for The Eternal Darkness were, The Endless Darkness (first), and then Darkness Eternea (second).
I originally just wanted to do the last two effects on the 'Lich'. The anti-counter ability was entirely improvised, and intended as a buffer to the deep cut on the power and toughness. It made the design seem underwhelming, on scale and power, for the concept presented. A whimpy Lich or Necromancer. That kind of dampener on fantasy isn't good for business. The anti-counter effect seems to fix that entirely. However, I still have a fondness for the concept retaining the last two abilities only, and possibly just moving up to a 4/3. Yet that reach of power seems critical to being game-ending with simple buffs Unholy Strength/Bad Moon.
I'm trying to bring back the element of 'simple but powerful', as a demonstration of the fantasy it wields. The imagination takes over, and begins to emulate dynamic flare to help bring the game to life. Cards that do too much, tend to leave little to the imagination, where you may not experience this effect.
I'd like to think there is great importance for it to retain its place in the Crown Circle of the game.
Congratulations on writing that longwinded post and ignoring all but the least relevant feedback you received. Removing shroud is a good step, but the repeatable mass removal attack trigger is what makes this a card that will stop the game dead in its track. You admite you have no concept of playing the game with actual people and it shows in your design.
The rest of you post is rambling gobbledy-gook. What do Bad Moon/Unholy Strength have to do with anything? Crown Circle of the game? WTF are you talking about? I'm seriously beginning to worry about your mental state.
First, its still unclear if you intend this as two separate cards or as two sides of a modal double-faced card. The inherent unbalancedness of the effects aside, I think these are good candidates to be a MDFC
By the first half a land and a swamp but not actually addressing the rules or balance issues of your card, you made it worse. As written its ability is still unplayable, but "as intended" it is broken with simply your Lich in play, let alone any other card that cares about a threshold of a creature type.
The can't be countered ability is mostly irrelevent, but not bad as trinket text (trinket text is an ability that sounds interesting but almost never actually matters in game like "can't be blocked by Saprolings"). Removing shroud helps it be interactive, but the third line of text might as well say "You opponent cannot attack if you control Nightmares". Any ability that stops a core part of the game from happening and is not easily removed or counters is bad for gameplay.
The "mass removal" you're suggesting is only relevant with the combo. The card on itself would struggle to do much of anything with that ability outside of something like Conspiracy, a handful of Changelings, and Mutavault. There is only that—and Banehound to quickly enable indestructible.
There is one issue with 'simplicity and power' in that the power has to be sustainable for it to have any precedent. Without the anti-counter effect, the design could struggle to have that, and this is why I'm leaning more towards the design needing that effect, for sustainability.
Ya'll need to stop feeding this troll. Either they don't know how MTG actually plays, or they do and are purposefully being obtuse. But either way, while its fun to see how wrong the card is, any response to their ideas just results in "Nuh-uh, <more bad ideas>." They aren't going to learn, and they aren't a disruptive enough troll to get banned. Make it a 2021 resolution to ignore and move on.
Public Mod Note
(bobthefunny):
Flaming. - There are ways to make your point without personal attacks.
The rest of you post is rambling gobbledy-gook. What do Bad Moon/Unholy Strength have to do with anything? Crown Circle of the game? WTF are you talking about? I'm seriously beginning to worry about your mental state.
Speaking on terms of power-creep. At 4/3―just a single Unholy Strength turns it into a 6/4. Just a single Bad Moon turns it into a 5/4 (which is just as bad). The power-creep quickly spills over the top and makes the design incredibly 'swingy'. It's able to end a game in just a couple turns. While considering the resistance to removal, and immunity to combat via indestructibility, that's not intuitive to interactivity, or the fun of the game.
Crown Circle of the game was referring to a principal or foundation of principals (per design, flavor, and world building) which are like the Crown or Crown Life of the game. They are like fundamentals the game will not thrive without—not in fantasy or interactive fun. The aspect I noted on relates to fantasy and flare. Back in the game, the game was simpler, and simplicity of power saw the imagination taking over, to emulate the fine details and help bring the fantasy to life. I long to preserve such content, or find ways amongst a Brave New World, to recreate or reanimate this dynamic while keeping pace with the times as they change, and advance, and complexify.
I think many would suggest it's impossible to tone down the power-creep, while keeping pace with the competitive potential of power-creep'd content. And here I am looking to prove that it is possible.
You're not going to prove anything with psuedo philosophical bs and no knowledge of actual gameplay. Stop trolling.
You're free to explain how this doesn't work.
Let's not try to make this habit—or a new corruptee fad—blatantly suggesting something doesn't work (going against the Golden Rules)—when it blatantly does or could (coinciding with the Golden Rules).
It is cute that you think unholy strength or bad moon are relevant since neither has been reprinted in a set for almost a decade.
I already explained how your card former card would be overpower with any relevant tribal synergies and the latter would grind a game to a halt by preventing the opponent from attacking and being non-interactive, but you prefer to live in your own reality rather than the one with people who actually know how the game works.
Quote from from="ReapThaWhirlwind »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/819596-reincarnation-dynamic-ad-insertion-keyword?comment=26" »
(from 11/26/20)
No, I think it's just moreso in the fact missing that I never recall a time when MTG wasn't a steaming pile of **** in some way, I could never unsee. And ever since have sought to devise solutions and schematics on how to fix all the major malfunctions/improficiencies/counter-productivities.
Go play actual Magic. That's a big negative. I honestly could only begin to explain my great disappointment in the current product; and can just sum up the fact that I wouldn't begin to invest my time or attention into it in this state. MTG needs a major rollback, something the truly narrow-minded "blind pioneers" would never consider (or admit) is necessary for doing. But stripping the product of coherence, and force majeure; while making it a tacky mess; though additions that impede on characteurs, identities, and dignities; should be expected to produce this result. What was available to be salvaged and recovered has nothing left anymore. Rollback and total overhaul would be the only option.
It is cute that you think unholy strength or bad moon are relevant since neither has been reprinted in a set for almost a decade.
I already explained how your card former card would be overpower with any relevant tribal synergies and the latter would grind a game to a halt by preventing the opponent from attacking and being non-interactive, but you prefer to live in your own reality rather than the one with people who actually know how the game works.
(from 11/26/20)
No, I think it's just moreso in the fact missing that I never recall a time when MTG wasn't a steaming pile of **** in some way, I could never unsee. And ever since have sought to devise solutions and schematics on how to fix all the major malfunctions/improficiencies/counter-productivities.
Go play actual Magic. That's a big negative. I honestly could only begin to explain my great disappointment in the current product; and can just sum up the fact that I wouldn't begin to invest my time or attention into it in this state. MTG needs a major rollback, something the truly narrow-minded "blind pioneers" would never consider (or admit) is necessary for doing. But stripping the product of coherence, and force majeure; while making it a tacky mess; though additions that impede on characteurs, identities, and dignities; should be expected to produce this result. What was available to be salvaged and recovered has nothing left anymore. Rollback and total overhaul would be the only option.
You did not in-fact. And you're neglecting that the build-around for Nightmares would require placements that detract from "removal and control" based spells, which provide immense competitive leverage.
This design seems some balance to this, on the battlefield only, where it's able to retain a pseudo-control leverage by means of the power/toughness dampening ability. Which makes the build around not only interesting, but fun by some fair chance. Let's not pretend this isn't the type of unique content we want to be creating; ones that provide entirely new deck structures.
I'm a Mid-School veteran from Odyseey and 7th Edition days. I am not a total noob. Although I don't play anymore, let's not act like I have no experience of the game at all. That's simply not true by any means.
I'm a Mid-School veteran from Odyseey and 7th Edition days. I am not a total noob. Although I don't play anymore, let's not act like I have no experience of the game at all. That's simply not true by any means.
You've said before that you haven't played since scars of Mirrodin, ten years and at least one major rules update ago. I've been playing consistently since Homelands, have played the game from casual level all the way to GPs, and am a Judge. You not having recent, active play experience shows in your lack of understanding of rules, game flow, interaction, and player behavior. And thinking the issues with your card haven't been explained when you simply ignored the first reply that laying out all the issues for you in plain language shows you aren't actually looking for constructive feedback.
I'm a Mid-School veteran from Odyseey and 7th Edition days. I am not a total noob. Although I don't play anymore, let's not act like I have no experience of the game at all. That's simply not true by any means.
You've said before that you haven't played since scars of Mirrodin, ten years and at least one major rules update ago. I've been playing consistently since Homelands, have played the game from casual level all the way to GPs, and am a Judge. You not having recent, active play experience shows in your lack of understanding of rules, game flow, interaction, and player behavior. And thinking the issues with your card haven't been explained when you simply ignored the first reply that laying out all the issues for you in plain language shows you aren't actually looking for constructive feedback.
The only thing you've shown out of this though is using it as a scapegoat to rules lawyer—blatantly conflicting the Golden Rules—and ignoring the basic need of comprehensive adaptations when pioneering something new or unique.
This is a signature of mine. I am a pioneer. I'm keen on ingenuity. Denials of these talents, their importance, or the right-standing of their application are simply oppressive. Considered you think this is ambiguous when you do this—but low and behold it's not.
Let's not attempt to oppress pioneering—and ingenuity—and grossly suggest the basic necessities that come with such work are unacceptable.
You're going against the Spirit of the Law and Creativity itself. It could never extend to protect you in doing this—but only to correct you and your ambitions as misguided. Worlds of interactivity are closed to you then—there is no hope for any future. You mine as well cease to exist.
I will add though that the land by itself does enable some sick things in Commander with Chainer, Dementia Master.
Essentially, you can fetch land The Eternal Darkness, then Role Reversal it to your opponent.
Chainer comes in—then leaves—and takes all their lands with him.
Then you can pop off a comment about them losing all their babies.
Currently, it doesn't seem like there's an other type of tribal support for Nightmares. And the ones that allow any type are kinda only of average power even with it.
While the commander combination is interesting, its a three card combo and Chainer can't be your commander if you want to run Role Reversal, so you'll have to draw/tutor for all of them. You can accomplish effectively the same thing with two cards in only two colors (Armageddon and Heroic Intervention) and that will destroy all your opponents' land instead of just one.
The issue of Nightmare swamp is twofold. First, as a general rule applying extra types to lands enables high powered interactions with scaling effects, so anything that does so need to be interactible. Land destruction is the least common type of disruption run, except in dedicated decks, so unless the meta shifts around reacting to that one card, people will not have an answer for it.
The second issue is that, while you are right that there aren't any cards currently that care tribally about Nightmares, you specifically created one along with your land that has a very powerful interaction with large numbers of Nightmares with the clear intent that they be played together.
Now, without playing any other creatures, an opponent's X/3s will die automatically if they attack, anything less than X/7 will die to being blocked by the lich and the lich is indestructible so decks not running exile or bounce as removal won't be able to open the board up to attack again. This means Black can answer this with -X/-X effects and white can if they have exile, and blue can counter if they are willing to pay a lot of life (of course, unlike 10 years ago when you played, aggressive counter-draw isn't really a strategy anymore). And because all the lands are Nighmares, the opponent cannot effectively attack those to make the Lich not be indestructible.
Your both your basic card idea and using Nightmare tribal are interesting, but its simply that your power level is pushed in the wrong places. These could be fun cards if you were willing to tweak them, but as written they would make the game worse to play, not better.
First off, as someone who actually has played regularly in shops for since the early 2000s, no, people regularly play defined formats because they all have a baseline of what players can expect from one another. Further, Elder Dragon Highlander always had color identity - color identity was the starting point of the format infact - but the Chainer comment was that, were Chainer your commander you would have easier access to it rather than having to tutor/draw for that part of the combo.
"Anything goes"/house rules do happen among individual groups that play regularly and are always an unknown entity; you can only balance around known formats. People can ban/allow whatever they want, but you can't make design decisions based on "there might be a group somewhere that lets people play with 6 of each card and bans Lightning Bolt."
Now, without playing any other creatures, an opponent's X/3s will die automatically if they attack, anything less than X/7 will die to being blocked by the lich and the lich is indestructible so decks not running exile or bounce as removal won't be able to open the board up to attack again.
Considering that this is defensive, and simply creates a standstill condition, there's no hostility factor for it to be a game-ending threat.
However, I am intrigued still by the 'simplicity and power' notion that I pitched earlier, and by that consider splitting off the third ability onto another design.
The problem with the defensive ability is that the defending player is already at an advantage in combat, so further discouraging attacking by the combination of mass power/toughness reduction and an indestructible blocker means that the momentum of the game towards ending is stopped dead in its tracks. In fact, your card would be completely reasonable, if a bit undercosted, if the reduction hit blockers instead of attackers because it would push the game towards conclusion rather than stagnation.
The problem with the defensive ability is that the defending player is already at an advantage in combat, so further discouraging attacking by the combination of mass power/toughness reduction and an indestructible blocker means that the momentum of the game towards ending is stopped dead in its tracks. In fact, your card would be completely reasonable, if a bit undercosted, if the reduction hit blockers instead of attackers because it would push the game towards conclusion rather than stagnation.
There is also another considerable element that might not be obvious for anyone to see. In all my project developments, I prioritize combat and battlefield development as a centerpiece. Naturally, this is where a large jackpot of fun lies; the masses of combat and combat interactions. Not masses of spells and removal, where games dominated by a single, overpowered creature.
So when developing any given card, I am envisioning a massive battlefield environment. In which, defensive resources like this are powerful, and have great utility, but themselves face a crush of entropy and combat volume.
Alongside cards like Oona's Gatewarden and Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon, it is very powerful. But we're not envisioning an empty battlefield on the other side. Even resources like this can fall off, and leave it all by itself, mostly powerless; mute and void.
The problem with the defensive ability is that the defending player is already at an advantage in combat, so further discouraging attacking by the combination of mass power/toughness reduction and an indestructible blocker means that the momentum of the game towards ending is stopped dead in its tracks. In fact, your card would be completely reasonable, if a bit undercosted, if the reduction hit blockers instead of attackers because it would push the game towards conclusion rather than stagnation.
There is also another considerable element that might not be obvious for anyone to see. In all my project developments, I prioritize combat and battlefield development as a centerpiece. Naturally, this is where a large jackpot of fun lies; the masses of combat and combat interactions. Not masses of spells and removal, where games dominated by a single, overpowered creature.
So when developing any given card, I am envisioning a massive battlefield environment. In which, defensive resources like this are powerful, and have great utility, but themselves face a crush of entropy and combat volume.
Alongside cards like Oona's Gatewarden and Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon, it is very powerful. But we're not envisioning an empty battlefield on the other side. Even resources like this can fall off, and leave it all by itself, mostly powerless; mute and void.
I find it very strange that inevitably at least once in your rants about your own cards you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of your own card.
You designed this envisioning massive boardstates clashing against each other. Meaning you must have taken notice that this card one-sidedly shuts down the opponents ability to attack regardless of how large their boardstate is. Yet this is the exact point you are choosing to ignore when its called up. So assuming you are in fact a competent designer you designed this for a world of spellslinging not a world of combat. Which is fine but it makes your last statement a flat out lie. Of course there is the alternative and more likely scenario. You aren't a genius or even mildly competent designer and a card you designed for a specific niche actually completely crushes that niche forcing everyone away from it.
[quote from="ReapThaWhirlwind »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/820074-nightmares?comment=21"]
You designed this envisioning massive boardstates clashing against each other. Meaning you must have taken notice that this card one-sidedly shuts down the opponents ability to attack regardless of how large their boardstate is.
Negative.
It creates a stand off position. In the event of a massive boardstate, the player controlling the Necromancer still themselves won't be able to attack freely without facing heavy opposition.
[quote from="ReapThaWhirlwind »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/820074-nightmares?comment=21"]
You designed this envisioning massive boardstates clashing against each other. Meaning you must have taken notice that this card one-sidedly shuts down the opponents ability to attack regardless of how large their boardstate is.
Negative.
It creates a stand off position. In the event of a massive boardstate, the player controlling the Necromancer still themselves won't be able to attack freely without facing heavy opposition.
</blockquote>
Remember, your necromance and land combine to make the lock with zero other creatures, and very few options of spot removal exist for many colors due to the composition of the lock you've created. A stalemate with roughly equal forces is fine, because once side can grid through the other with incremental advantage gains. Your lock requires the necro player to draw one creature and one land and the opponent cannot initiate their attack to begin gaining that incremental advantage.
And if you actually play magic, you'd know this. But you don't.
[quote from="ReapThaWhirlwind »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/820074-nightmares?comment=21"]
You designed this envisioning massive boardstates clashing against each other. Meaning you must have taken notice that this card one-sidedly shuts down the opponents ability to attack regardless of how large their boardstate is.
Negative.
It creates a stand off position. In the event of a massive boardstate, the player controlling the Necromancer still themselves won't be able to attack freely without facing heavy opposition.
You would almost have a valid point if the card locking your opponent out of combat wasn't an indestructible creature. Once more you spectacularly failed to understand the very card you created.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Legendary Land — Swamp
[darkness, ambient light, arbor, foliage, road, and fog]
Lands you control are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
//
Necromancer of the Dark-Pact BBB
Creature — Avatar
Necromancer of the Dark-Pact can't be countered unless the source's controller pays half of his or her life, rounded down.
Necromancer of the Dark-Pact is indestructible as long as you control a Nightmare.
Whenever a creature attacks you, that creature gets -1/-1 for each Nightmare you control.
3/2
Spirit of Terror 2B
Creature — Nightmare
Spirit of Terror's power and toughness is equal to the number of Nightmares you control plus the number of Nightmare cards in your graveyard.
If Spirit of Terror would be destroyed, regenerate it and you lose 2 life.
I still remember that night of dread—as if it was just yesterday. And the feeling that haunted me long after—that it was going to take me out. It feels like just a dream that it's gone. Is it coming back for me again? Or will another arise as a darker shadow than once was?
+*/+*
That aside, the top half would need to either make the lands creatures also or give them the Tribal supertype, as creature types cannot be granted to non-creature non-tribal permanents. Also, granting relevant types/subtypes to lands in wide quantities can be dangerous, as Affinity for Artifacts demonstrated during mirrodin block causing the Artifact Lands to get banned. The exception is when the effect also makes them creatures and/or is on a creature because the effect can more easily be interacted with by the opponent. If this made the lands 1/1 black Nightmare creatures, it would be more balanced, especially with the lower card.
Playing the game would show you that the second half/card will be inherently unfun to play against as written, because it basically shuts the other player down from paying Magic. The mass -1/-1s on attacks means your opponent cannot go wide around it, it being indestructible means means their largest attacker that survives will bounce off it, and shroud means that it cannot be point removed. A board wipe is the usual answer to an untargetable creature, but it will be indestructible when the wipe resolves so you would need two in the same turn before they can ply another nightmare.
So how can you make this better? Small tweaks are actually easy here.
Nightmare Lich Prototype 4BBB (1)
Legendary Creature - Zombie Wizard (2)
Indestructible
This creature has hexproof as long as you control a Nightmare. (3)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you, target attacking creature gets -X/-X , where X is the number of Nightmares you control. (4)
5/5
(1)(An indestructible, conditionally untargetable 5/5 with the ability to repeatedly remove creatures will be at least 7 mana, possibly 8)
(2){Lichs are always Zombies of some kind)
(3){Shroud isn't used anymore, since about Rise of the Eldrazi, but hexproof let you interact with your lich if you want to. Making it conditional rather than the indestructible means it can be bounced, exiled, Dismembered after a boardwipe gets rid of the Nightmares)
(4)(Making the the attack trigger target means you have the utility of destroying the most threatening attacker and blocking another with the Lich, but your opponent can still attack effectively to grind down the nightmares or go around them with superior numbers)
What a nicely balanced and intriguing card that actually allows for interaction instead of grinding the game to an utter halt for no good reason while breaking rules regarding card types without justification for it on a rules-wide level beyond "the rules could change to make my one card work". You are the sort of card designer that I feel we should see more of on these forums and I hope that we continue to see more of this sort of artistry instead of loose ideas written on a napkin that nobody bothered translating into a proper magic card.
Alternative names for The Eternal Darkness were, The Endless Darkness (first), and then Darkness Eternea (second).
I originally just wanted to do the last two effects on the 'Lich'. The anti-counter ability was entirely improvised, and intended as a buffer to the deep cut on the power and toughness. It made the design seem underwhelming, on scale and power, for the concept presented. A whimpy Lich or Necromancer. That kind of dampener on fantasy isn't good for business. The anti-counter effect seems to fix that entirely. However, I still have a fondness for the concept retaining the last two abilities only, and possibly just moving up to a 4/3. Yet that reach of power seems critical to being game-ending with simple buffs Unholy Strength/Bad Moon.
I'm trying to bring back the element of 'simple but powerful', as a demonstration of the fantasy it wields. The imagination takes over, and begins to emulate dynamic flare to help bring the game to life. Cards that do too much, tend to leave little to the imagination, where you may not experience this effect.
I'd like to think there is great importance for it to retain its place in the Crown Circle of the game.
The rest of you post is rambling gobbledy-gook. What do Bad Moon/Unholy Strength have to do with anything? Crown Circle of the game? WTF are you talking about? I'm seriously beginning to worry about your mental state.
First, its still unclear if you intend this as two separate cards or as two sides of a modal double-faced card. The inherent unbalancedness of the effects aside, I think these are good candidates to be a MDFC
By the first half a land and a swamp but not actually addressing the rules or balance issues of your card, you made it worse. As written its ability is still unplayable, but "as intended" it is broken with simply your Lich in play, let alone any other card that cares about a threshold of a creature type.
The can't be countered ability is mostly irrelevent, but not bad as trinket text (trinket text is an ability that sounds interesting but almost never actually matters in game like "can't be blocked by Saprolings"). Removing shroud helps it be interactive, but the third line of text might as well say "You opponent cannot attack if you control Nightmares". Any ability that stops a core part of the game from happening and is not easily removed or counters is bad for gameplay.
There is one issue with 'simplicity and power' in that the power has to be sustainable for it to have any precedent. Without the anti-counter effect, the design could struggle to have that, and this is why I'm leaning more towards the design needing that effect, for sustainability.
Speaking on terms of power-creep. At 4/3―just a single Unholy Strength turns it into a 6/4. Just a single Bad Moon turns it into a 5/4 (which is just as bad). The power-creep quickly spills over the top and makes the design incredibly 'swingy'. It's able to end a game in just a couple turns. While considering the resistance to removal, and immunity to combat via indestructibility, that's not intuitive to interactivity, or the fun of the game.
Crown Circle of the game was referring to a principal or foundation of principals (per design, flavor, and world building) which are like the Crown or Crown Life of the game. They are like fundamentals the game will not thrive without—not in fantasy or interactive fun. The aspect I noted on relates to fantasy and flare. Back in the game, the game was simpler, and simplicity of power saw the imagination taking over, to emulate the fine details and help bring the fantasy to life. I long to preserve such content, or find ways amongst a Brave New World, to recreate or reanimate this dynamic while keeping pace with the times as they change, and advance, and complexify.
I think many would suggest it's impossible to tone down the power-creep, while keeping pace with the competitive potential of power-creep'd content. And here I am looking to prove that it is possible.
You're free to explain how this doesn't work.
Let's not try to make this habit—or a new corruptee fad—blatantly suggesting something doesn't work (going against the Golden Rules)—when it blatantly does or could (coinciding with the Golden Rules).
You don't just look silly...
I already explained how your card former card would be overpower with any relevant tribal synergies and the latter would grind a game to a halt by preventing the opponent from attacking and being non-interactive, but you prefer to live in your own reality rather than the one with people who actually know how the game works.
You did not in-fact. And you're neglecting that the build-around for Nightmares would require placements that detract from "removal and control" based spells, which provide immense competitive leverage.
This design seems some balance to this, on the battlefield only, where it's able to retain a pseudo-control leverage by means of the power/toughness dampening ability. Which makes the build around not only interesting, but fun by some fair chance. Let's not pretend this isn't the type of unique content we want to be creating; ones that provide entirely new deck structures.
I'm a Mid-School veteran from Odyseey and 7th Edition days. I am not a total noob. Although I don't play anymore, let's not act like I have no experience of the game at all. That's simply not true by any means.
You've said before that you haven't played since scars of Mirrodin, ten years and at least one major rules update ago. I've been playing consistently since Homelands, have played the game from casual level all the way to GPs, and am a Judge. You not having recent, active play experience shows in your lack of understanding of rules, game flow, interaction, and player behavior. And thinking the issues with your card haven't been explained when you simply ignored the first reply that laying out all the issues for you in plain language shows you aren't actually looking for constructive feedback.
The only thing you've shown out of this though is using it as a scapegoat to rules lawyer—blatantly conflicting the Golden Rules—and ignoring the basic need of comprehensive adaptations when pioneering something new or unique.
This is a signature of mine. I am a pioneer. I'm keen on ingenuity. Denials of these talents, their importance, or the right-standing of their application are simply oppressive. Considered you think this is ambiguous when you do this—but low and behold it's not.
Let's not attempt to oppress pioneering—and ingenuity—and grossly suggest the basic necessities that come with such work are unacceptable.
You're going against the Spirit of the Law and Creativity itself. It could never extend to protect you in doing this—but only to correct you and your ambitions as misguided. Worlds of interactivity are closed to you then—there is no hope for any future. You mine as well cease to exist.
Essentially, you can fetch land The Eternal Darkness, then Role Reversal it to your opponent.
Chainer comes in—then leaves—and takes all their lands with him.
Then you can pop off a comment about them losing all their babies.
Currently, it doesn't seem like there's an other type of tribal support for Nightmares. And the ones that allow any type are kinda only of average power even with it.
The issue of Nightmare swamp is twofold. First, as a general rule applying extra types to lands enables high powered interactions with scaling effects, so anything that does so need to be interactible. Land destruction is the least common type of disruption run, except in dedicated decks, so unless the meta shifts around reacting to that one card, people will not have an answer for it.
The second issue is that, while you are right that there aren't any cards currently that care tribally about Nightmares, you specifically created one along with your land that has a very powerful interaction with large numbers of Nightmares with the clear intent that they be played together.
As written, a player can play
Turn 1: Swamp
Turn 2: Swamp
Turn 3: Nighmare Swamp into Necromancer
Now, without playing any other creatures, an opponent's X/3s will die automatically if they attack, anything less than X/7 will die to being blocked by the lich and the lich is indestructible so decks not running exile or bounce as removal won't be able to open the board up to attack again. This means Black can answer this with -X/-X effects and white can if they have exile, and blue can counter if they are willing to pay a lot of life (of course, unlike 10 years ago when you played, aggressive counter-draw isn't really a strategy anymore). And because all the lands are Nighmares, the opponent cannot effectively attack those to make the Lich not be indestructible.
Your both your basic card idea and using Nightmare tribal are interesting, but its simply that your power level is pushed in the wrong places. These could be fun cards if you were willing to tweak them, but as written they would make the game worse to play, not better.
Players in most shops play by and allow these house rules.
"Anything goes"/house rules do happen among individual groups that play regularly and are always an unknown entity; you can only balance around known formats. People can ban/allow whatever they want, but you can't make design decisions based on "there might be a group somewhere that lets people play with 6 of each card and bans Lightning Bolt."
Considering that this is defensive, and simply creates a standstill condition, there's no hostility factor for it to be a game-ending threat.
Thus, I'm not moved by this particular argument suggesting that it tips the scales of balance.
However, I am intrigued still by the 'simplicity and power' notion that I pitched earlier, and by that consider splitting off the third ability onto another design.
There is also another considerable element that might not be obvious for anyone to see. In all my project developments, I prioritize combat and battlefield development as a centerpiece. Naturally, this is where a large jackpot of fun lies; the masses of combat and combat interactions. Not masses of spells and removal, where games dominated by a single, overpowered creature.
So when developing any given card, I am envisioning a massive battlefield environment. In which, defensive resources like this are powerful, and have great utility, but themselves face a crush of entropy and combat volume.
Alongside cards like Oona's Gatewarden and Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon, it is very powerful. But we're not envisioning an empty battlefield on the other side. Even resources like this can fall off, and leave it all by itself, mostly powerless; mute and void.
You designed this envisioning massive boardstates clashing against each other. Meaning you must have taken notice that this card one-sidedly shuts down the opponents ability to attack regardless of how large their boardstate is. Yet this is the exact point you are choosing to ignore when its called up. So assuming you are in fact a competent designer you designed this for a world of spellslinging not a world of combat. Which is fine but it makes your last statement a flat out lie. Of course there is the alternative and more likely scenario. You aren't a genius or even mildly competent designer and a card you designed for a specific niche actually completely crushes that niche forcing everyone away from it.
Negative.
It creates a stand off position. In the event of a massive boardstate, the player controlling the Necromancer still themselves won't be able to attack freely without facing heavy opposition.
Remember, your necromance and land combine to make the lock with zero other creatures, and very few options of spot removal exist for many colors due to the composition of the lock you've created. A stalemate with roughly equal forces is fine, because once side can grid through the other with incremental advantage gains. Your lock requires the necro player to draw one creature and one land and the opponent cannot initiate their attack to begin gaining that incremental advantage.
And if you actually play magic, you'd know this. But you don't.